The States of Tao

[Marblehead]

Funny thing about opinions: if two people have differing opinions both people are right and both people are wrong.

[dawei]

Funny thing about opinions: if two people have differing opinions both people are right and both people are wrong.

Is that a third opinion? I hope you see the difference between factual comments and fabricated emotional smoke and mirrors...and those who simply toss nothing into the pile for no reason...

[Marblehead]

Is that a third opinion?

Nope. That is an observation of a reality.

 

"I hope you see the difference between factual comments and fabricated emotional smoke and mirrors...and those who simply toss nothing into the pile for no reason... "

 

I know the difference. When someone says something I accept the fact that that person has said something. But was something of value said? Sometimes I can judge immediately, other times I will do my research to verify, and still othertimes I will disregard what was said. And then there are times when I will call BS.

 

Where a comma is in a sentence doesn't matter, IMO. Were the words true and was the concept understood? That matters. Now we can decide whether or not we will accept the concept as true or valid. But our decision will be subjective and we will accept only those things we want to accept.

 

BTW We are in the State of Yo right now.

[dawei]

Nope. That is an observation of a reality.

 

"I hope you see the difference between factual comments and fabricated emotional smoke and mirrors...and those who simply toss nothing into the pile for no reason... "

 

I know the difference. When someone says something I accept the fact that that person has said something. But was something of value said? Sometimes I can judge immediately, other times I will do my research to verify, and still othertimes I will disregard what was said. And then there are times when I will call BS.

 

Where a comma is in a sentence doesn't matter, IMO. Were the words true and was the concept understood? That matters. Now we can decide whether or not we will accept the concept as true or valid. But our decision will be subjective and we will accept only those things we want to accept.

 

BTW We are in the State of Yo right now.

So how is my saying the thread is about Wang's idea an opinion? That was what I pointed out. Seems factual to me. Not sure where personal offense is taken from that.

 

You make a lot of good points but as you like to stir the pot a bit, I am surprised it has not taken internally in application. But nice observations nonetheless.

[rene]

Where a comma is in a sentence doesn't matter, IMO. Were the words true and was the concept understood? That matters.

 

Ohhh where the comma (and other punctuation) is can very much matter in some cases! For example:

 

I'm sorry, I love you.

I'm sorry I love you.

I'm sorry I love. You?

 

Another example, is in a recent post of dawei's that I mis-interpreted (apologies, d. ) He wrote: "...Just be real and be honest and be yourself... Nobody wants anything more from you... " which, given their exchange at the time, I took to mean he was saying nobody wanted CD to post anymore - and I now realize he probably meant 'nobody wants anything more than CD to be honest and be himself.' So yes, commas and other punctuation can be critical to convey meanings. But are word choices and punctuation the only things that convey? Not in my opinion.

 

Opinion: a belief or judgment that rests on grounds insufficient to produce complete certainty. (dictionary dot com)

 

Complete certainty ?? LOL If that's the case, almost every word out of my mouth is an opinion as the only thing I'm completely certain about is... hmmm... Have to get back to you on that. (-:

 

warm regards, all

[dawei]

and I now realize he probably meant 'nobody wants anything more than CD to be honest and be himself.'

Yes. Thanks.

 

But to try and stay to your topic... I see the two [unboundaried] states as ebb and flow. While a comma is important, it is important for the reading but it is interesting to note that classical chinese did not use a comma and that is how our variations in translation occur.

 

But, IMO, LZ walked in Wu (comma-less) but had to write in You (commas). When he put the book down, he could get back to the life of comma-less living in a world of commas.

Edited August 30, 2012 by dawei

[rene]

But, IMO, LZ walked in Wu (comma-less) but had to write in You (commas). When he put the book down, he could get back to the life of comma-less living in a world of commas.

 

I agree with complete certainty. (-:

 

warmest regards

[Stosh]

Dudes, I have no idea what Taoist traditions say about being ticked off.

But from personal experience it takes three days to really cool off,

before that pilot light goes out .

Walk away even if its unsettled

for three days.

Then start up again if its still what you want.

Stosh

Edited August 30, 2012 by Stosh

[rene]

Stosh, you're a sweetie for trying to mitigate, thanks! I have no idea what Taoist traditions say about being ticked off cause I'm not Taoist, lol. For me, ticked off goes away faster than it comes; and I'm already long past whatever it was. I dont 'store-up' my opinions about others; everyone starts with a perpetual clean slate. ChuangTzu describes it pretty well, imo, in his "Each moment a springtime." Good thing, too, cause if I had to wait three days - I'd probably forget what the hell I was talking about or if I even still held the same idea!

 

warm regards

[dawei]

Not sure who is supposedly ticked off... sad that conversations can't come and go; ebb and flow; let them run their course and die their own death without interference...

 

Of course a better idea is to just stick to the topic...

 

But waiting three days sounds like a whole lot of silliness to me; if it can't come and go in a moment then it is pent up and maybe online is not the place to be... but it is cheaper than therapy.

Edited August 30, 2012 by dawei

[ChiDragon]

Wu is a positive state of Tao. This positive nature of Wu must be properly preserved in our interpretation of Tao. For example, Laotzu often used Wu-wei 無為, Wu-Yue 無欲, and Wu-zhi 無知 as the main attributes of the Wu state. These concepts are of great importance in Tao philosophy. Unfortunately, these terms have been commonly interpreted as without action, without desire, and without wisdom. Such negative interpretations have contributed to gross misunderstandings of Wu, and, more importantly, of Tao.

 

It is clear that Wu-wei 無為 should not be interpreted as without action. Wu-wei is the spontaneous action that maintains harmonious interaction between man and heaven. We have translated Wu-wei literally as Wu-action or as the action according to the Wu state. By acting with Wu, we may maintain our harmony with heaven.

 

Some people have argued that Laotzu is anti-wisdom because he promoted ignorance. Laotzu’s concept of Wu-zhi 無知 has been interpreted as “without wisdom” or as ignorance. Such anti-wisdom interpretation has been detrimental to our understanding of Tao. We shall show that this is the most misunderstood concept in Tao. The truth is that Laotzu never showed anything against wisdom or knowledge. We should interpret Wu-zhi as the wisdom of the Wu state, or simply Wu-wisdom. This simple re-interpretation gives us a new state of mind to appreciate the positive nature of Tao. Tao becomes much more coherent and pro-wisdom. In fact, we can no longer find any anti-wisdom state in the Tao Te Ching. For example, we have interpreted the following verse in Chapter 3 as:

 

恒使民

無知、無欲也，

Always guide the people to

Wu-wisdom and Wu-desire.

 

rene....

I am going to tell like it is. What threw me off was this. The Tao Te Ching was written based on the philosophy of Wu Wei(無為). In a way, I agree that Wu Wei(無為), Wu Zhi(無知) and Wu Yue( 無欲) can be considered as a state of Wu.

 

From the OP, I don't see how Wu Zhi(無知) was defined here. I know Wu Wei(無為) and Wu Yue( 無欲) can be considered to be the state of Wu for Tao, not in a sense of invisible, but just being its natural self. However, Wu Zhi(無知) is not a state of Wu nor the positive nature of Tao but only for the people as suggested by LaoTze.

 

Before, I go any further. rene, Did Dr. Wang or you define what is the meaning of Wu-wisdom....??? I need to know his or your definition of Wu-wisdom before I continue. Thanks.

Edited August 30, 2012 by ChiDragon

[rene]

reposted on next page

Edited August 30, 2012 by rene

[Marblehead]

So how is my saying the thread is about Wang's idea an opinion? That was what I pointed out. Seems factual to me. Not sure where personal offense is taken from that.

 

You make a lot of good points but as you like to stir the pot a bit, I am surprised it has not taken internally in application. But nice observations nonetheless.

Perhaps I misunderstood your intention. Yes, the thread is based in Wang's understanding of Yo and Wu.

 

I did not take personal offense. You know you have to hit me harder than that for it to have any effect.

 

I do not deny that I like to stir the pot. More often than not it results in some nice discussions.

[Marblehead]

I'm sorry ...

I'm sorry ...

I'm sorry ...

Okay, so you are sorry. I forgive you already. Shall we kiss and make up?

[dawei]

Perhaps I misunderstood your intention. Yes, the thread is based in Wang's understanding of Yo and Wu.

 

I did not take personal offense. You know you have to hit me harder than that for it to have any effect.

 

I do not deny that I like to stir the pot. More often than not it results in some nice discussions.

I did not say you took personal offense... either you did not really read all the exchange before wanting to post something or I have forgotten a comma somewhere... In either case, it doesn't matter... back to the thread...

[Marblehead]

... back to the thread...

Indeed!

[ChiDragon]

I did not take personal offense.

I do not deny that I like to stir the pot. More often than not it results in some nice discussions.

 

You did indeed.

[Marblehead]

You did indeed.

Stop that!!! Hehehe.

[Stosh]

Good thing, too, cause if I had to wait three days - I'd probably forget what the hell I was talking about or if I even still held the same idea!

 

 

Exactly right. :)Stosh

[rene]

Hi CD, I'm glad you decided to give it another go. (-:

 

"rene....

I am going to tell like it is. What threw me off was this. The Tao Te Ching was written based on the philosophy of Wu Wei(無為). "

 

You are right and now take it one step further. The Tao The Ching was written based on the philosophy of the state of Wu as described in Ch1, one of harmonious interaction. Wu Wei(無為) is one manifestation of this over-arching concept. Wang feels, and I agree, that this dynamic, unboundaried interaction with the Wu state, is not limited to only 無為.

 

 

"In a way, I agree that Wu Wei(無為), Wu Zhi(無知) and Wu Yue( 無欲) can be considered as a state of Wu.From the OP, I don't see how Wu Zhi(無知) was defined here. I know Wu Wei(無為) and Wu Yue( 無欲) can be considered to be the state of Wu for Tao, not in a sense of invisible, but just being its natural self. However, Wu Zhi(無知) is not a state of Wu nor the positive nature of Tao but only for the people as suggested by LaoTze. Before, I go any further. rene, Did Dr. Wang or you define what is the meaning of Wu-wisdom....??? I need to know his or your definition of Wu-wisdom before I continue. Thanks."

 

 

Just as Wu-wei (無為) should not be interpreted as “without action”, Wu-zhi (無知) should not be interpreted as “ignorant”. Wu-wei was literally translated by Wang as Wu-action, or as action according to the Wu state, Wu-zhi (無知) was translated as Wu-wisdom, or as wisdom according to the Wu state.

 

Here are a few more excerpts from the text you might find interesting:

Our interpretation of Wu-wisdom comes out of our analysis of the two words, ZHI 知 and zhi 智, used in the Tao Te Ching texts. The 知 and 智 are often used interchangeably in many ancient Chinese classics and their distinctions are often made by the interpreters. Whenever their distinction is observed, 知 is used as wisdom. Logographically, it is interesting to note that 智 is written as “wisdom 知 that lasts over a day 日only.

 

[For convenience, we use capitalized ZHI as wisdom and lower case zhi as knowledge in the following discussion. These two words are used inter-changeably in many ancient Chinese literature. Laotzu used these words with clear distinction and with consistency in the Tao Te Ching. He used ZHI 知 as wisdom as associated with the Wu state - and zhi 智 as wisdom associated with the changing world, or the Yo state. So zhi 智 represents temporary wisdom, which we identify as knowledge. Laotzu identifies ZHI (wisdom) with the Wu state and zhi (knowledge) with the Yo state.]

 

For example, we have interpreted the following verse in Chapter 3 as:

 

3 恒使民

無知、無欲也，

Always guide the people to

Wu-wisdom and Wu-desire.

 

With this interpretation, Laotzu actually urges people to seek positively the wisdom of the Wu state and the desire for the Wu state. Our interpretation is contrary to the popular statement that Laotzu intended to make people ignorant and without desires.

 

We may apply the same rule to another very difficult verse in Chapter 70. This verse looks very awkward in its sentence structure and has defied a coherent interpretation. But, with our interpretation of Wu-zhi, the verse becomes quite simple as:

 

70 夫唯無知也，

是以不我知。

Unless by Wu-wisdom,

there is no way to understand my principles.

 

Our analysis shows that Laotzu plainly urged us to seek his teachings by using the wisdom of the Wu state. 1 There is no mystery in this verse.

 

What is the distinction between ZHI and zhi? Simply put, Laotzu said that the leader should have wisdom of Wu so he can lead. People at least should have enough wisdom of Yo, the knowledge, to be guided to follow Tao. The wisdom of the Yo state is not sufficient for a ruler to rule, as Laotzu states in Chapter 65:

 

65 夫民之難治也，

以其智也。

People are hard to manage, because

the ruler relies on his knowledge.

 

 

This interpretation is explicitly stated again in Chapter 75, where Laotzu states,

 

75 百姓之不治也，

以其上之有以為也，

是以不治。

People are hard to manage because

the ruler acts with Yo, so

he cannot manage.

 

This view is also supported by Chapter 57, where Laotzu states, “When (a leader) acts with Wu-action, people will self-evolve.” Throughout the Tao Te Ching, we have a consistent interpretation of wisdom of Wu and knowledge of Yo. This interpretation is also consistent with Hsuntzu, who said that, “Knowing within oneself is called wisdom. Knowing corresponding to external things is called knowledge.” 1 Lietzu made the same distinction by saying: “Knowledge cannot be wisdom.”2 Wentzu asked, “Seeking the true wisdom, can we attain Wu-wisdom? This is the true wisdom.”1 Laotzu emphasized that wisdom at the Wu level is the ultimate wisdom that a leader should have in order to manage the people effectively. He also emphasized the importance of knowledge, as the wisdom of the Yo state. …

[rene]

Rene...

 

No worries, Marblehead.

Edited September 1, 2012 by rene

[ChiDragon]

知 and 智 are often used interchangeably in many ancient Chinese classics.

ahhhhhhhh...rene

Yes, I have no problem with "知 and 智 are often used interchangeably in many ancient Chinese classics." The meaning for both characters can be easily determined within the classic context. Anyway, only in modern Chinese has a distinction between the two.

 

Let's look at Chapter 3

3 恒使民

無知、無欲也，

Always guide the people to

Wu-wisdom and Wu-desire.

 

With this interpretation, Laotzu actually urges people to seek positively the wisdom of the Wu state and the desire for the Wu state. Our interpretation is contrary to the popular statement that Laotzu intended to make people ignorant and without desires.

 

無知...

Let's analyse this 無知. Your interpretation is contrary to the popular statement that Laotzu intended to make people ignorant and without desires. You are on the right track. Yes, LaoTze did not encourage the people to seek positive wisdom nor to be ignorant because the people have their own choice for what they wanted to be. I don't think main concern was about that.

 

Based what has been said, it would be a more appropriate to translate it as:

3 恒使民

無知、無欲也，

Always let the people to have no knowledge(無知) of cunning(scheming, cheating...etc)

No desire(無欲) to steal(rob, loot..etc).

 

無知, here, means no knowledge of

 

70 夫唯無知也，

是以不我知。

Unless by Wu-wisdom,

there is no way to understand my principles.

 

5. 言有宗,

6. 事有君。

7. 夫唯無知也,

8. 是以我不知。

 

5. Words has an origin.

6. Matter has its root.

7. Because others don't understand these reasons,

8. Thus that's why they don't understand me.

 

Lines 7 and 8 have to be interpreted within context with lines 5 and 6.

7. Because others don't understand(無知) these reasons(lines 5 & 6),

8. Thus that's why they don't understand(無知) me.

 

無知 in these two lines means don't understand.

Edited August 31, 2012 by ChiDragon

[rene]

Yes, LaoTze did not encourage the people to seek positive wisdom...

Hi, just to be clear, the 'positive' part of this idea isn't pointing at a "good, virtuous, positive, uplifting, etc" meaning ... but at the wuwei outcomes which seem to benefit more often than not... i.e., outcomes that come naturally from the wu-wisdom interactions of the wu-state.

 

Your turn. (-: I'll bbl later tonight.

Edited August 31, 2012 by rene

[ChiDragon]

Hi, just to be clear, the 'positive' part of this idea isn't pointing at a "good, virtuous, positive, uplifting, etc" meaning ... but at the wuwei outcomes which seem to benefit more often than not... i.e., outcomes that come naturally from the wu-wisdom interactions of the wu-state.

 

Yes, I understand that. Anyway, it wasn't relevant in this discussion . Now, I have completed my post in the above.

[rene]

CD, hi, thanks for your detailed post. I think the differences are ones of semantics (which is an odd thing given it's characters and not words, lol) based on the differences each perspective brings to the interpretations. If I may ask, regarding:

 

"Yes, I have no problem with "知 and 智 are often used interchangeably in many ancient Chinese classics." The meaning for both characters can be easily determined within the classic context..."

 

In the chapters you looked at, was there a consistancy (not asking about accuracy or validity, just consistancy) in the context for 知 and 智 ?

 

What I'm asking is, where 知 occured, was the context regarding 'wisdom' - and where 智 occured, was the context regarding knowledge?

 

Thanks!